Bill Gillespie

1
Reducing Diesel Emissions from Construction
Projects

• Bill Gillespie
• Senior Environmental Scientist
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
• MARAMA
• September 18, 2006

2
Presentation Outline

• What is the Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative
• Work of the Construction Workgroup
• Why it is important to reduce construction
  emissions
• A case study
• Key elements of successful programs
• Making it happen in our region Discussion

3
The Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative

• MDC is a partnership between leaders from
  federal, state, and local government, the private
  sector, and environmental groups
• District of Columbia
• Delaware
• Maryland
• New Jersey (non voting)
• North Carolina (non-voting)
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia
• West Virginia

Winners in Pennsylvanias Clean School Bus Art
Contest
4
Mission and Purpose

• Mission of the Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative
  is
• Reduce diesel emissions to protect public health
  throughout the Mid-Atlantic Region

5
Mission and Purpose

• Purpose
• Leverage resources and expertise to reduce diesel
  emissions to improve public health
• Promote collaboration and coordination among
  projects within the Region.
• Raise awareness of activities underway and the
  need for additional diesel emission reduction
  projects in the Region.

6
Organization

• MDC Steering Committee
• Adopts goals strategies supports, leads
  promotes projects oversees workgroups, etc.
• Voting members are the EPA Region 3 Air Directors
• MDC Workgroups
• Construction
• Freight
• Ports/Marine
• School Buses
• Urban Fleets

7
The MDC Construction Workgroup

• Goal
• Develop strategies, incentives, and projects to
  reduce diesel emissions from construction
  equipment and vehicles in the Mid-Atlantic Region
  
• Workgroup Chairs
• Brian Rehn, EPA Region 3
• Alison Tracy, Philadelphia Air Management Services

8
Workgroup Focus

• Projects and incentive programs for diesel
  construction equipment/vehicles including
• Retrofit
• Replacement
• Re-powering
• Reduced activity levels (such as reduced idling)
• Measures that optimize vehicle operating
  characteristics

9
Workgroup Strategy

• Share information among workgroup members
• Seek funding for construction-related projects
• Work with MPOs to identify large construction
  projects and achieve emission reductions at these
  projects
• Award/recognize Environmentally Friendly
  construction companies and projects

10
Workgroup Initiatives

• Meet with MPOs, State DOTs and FHWA offices in
  Mid-Atlantic to identify large construction
  projects in the region. Determine if diesel
  emissions reduction projects can be implemented
  at these projects.
• Explore the use of contract language to reduce
  diesel emissions on large, state/federally funded
  construction projects
• Explore the idling time of cement trucks and
  develop programs to reduce idling time if
  possible.
• Develop opportunities to demonstrate/verify new
  technologies on construction equipment.

11
The Importance of Reducing Construction Emissions

• About 2 million diesel engines are in use in
  construction equipment across the nation
• About 31 were manufactured before the
  introduction of emissions regulations
• Equipment has long operational life, often
  lasting more than 25-30 years
• According to EPA models, in 2005, construction
  equipment generated roughly
• 32 of all land-based non-road NOX emissions
• 37 of land-based PM10 emissions

12
The Importance of Reducing Construction Emissions

• The health risks associated with diesel exhaust
  include cancer, asthma, and heart disease
• Construction equipment emissions often occur in
  locations where people live, work, and play
• Emissions sometimes occur in dense, urban
  environments where exposure is amplified
• Reducing diesel emissions improves quality of
  life and reduces nuisance complaints

13
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• The Big Dig, or the Central Artery/Tunnel project
  was
• 13 billion project in downtown Boston
• Included
• 4-lane tunnel under Boston harbor,
• 10-lane bridge over the Charles River
• 8-10-lane underground expressway for I-93
• Work began in 1991

14
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• In assessing the project, Massachusetts DEP
• Addressed the potential of enormous dust and odor
  complaints
• Then saw the prospect of high diesel emission
  exposure
• MA DEP, the project proponent and others worked
  in partnership to develop a diesel retrofit
  project

15
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• MA DEP worked with the MA Transportation
  Authority (MTA) to develop a partnership the
  Clean Air Construction Initiative (CACI)
• CACI included
• MA DEP, MTA, MA Executive Office of Environmental
  Affairs
• EPA Region I
• Northeast State for Coordinate Air Use Management
  
• Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association

16
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• The retrofit project was
• Practical, affordable, flexible
• Conducted in phases
• Phase I retrofit 10 pieces of equipment.
  Control systems donated by MECA
• Phase II retrofit 50 pieces of equipment. MTA
  funds control equipment
• 60 pieces of equipment (25 of all vehicles)
  reduced emissions 200 tons over 4-5 years,
  equivalent to removing 1,300 public buses from
  the road for one year

17
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• The retrofit project installed mostly
• Diesel Oxidation catalysts (DOCs)
• Some Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) installed
• Typical DOC costs were about 2,500 per vehicle
• There were no OM issues with retrofitted
  equipment
• No loss of power
• No increased fuel use
• No additional downtime
• No engine warranty problems

18
A Case Study Bostons Big Dig

• The retrofit project at the Big Dig was a Big
  Success!
• Emissions reduced
• Retrofit equipment worked
• Minimal costs
• Public felt their interests were served
• Emission reductions helped advance the project
• All partners looked good, felt good, and got
  recognition
• MA DEP now requires the retrofit of diesel
  equipment on MA Clean Water Drinking Water
  projects

19
Key Elements of Successful Programs

• Executive leadership
• Partnering
• DEPs, DOTs, construction companies, others
• Funding
• Practical, affordable, flexible
• Voluntary vs. mandatory programs

20
Funding Sources

• Federal grants EPA and DOE
• State grant programs
• State DEPs
• City or state Air Quality Funds
• Enforcement Supplemental Environmental Projects
• State DOTs
• Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding
• Diesel Collaboratives
• Private sources

21
Funding Sources

• Obligated CMAQ Funding (in millions)

22
Voluntary vs. Mandatory Programs

• There have been successful voluntary and
  successful mandatory programs
• There can be legal issues with mandatory
  programs, however.
• Clean Air Act prohibits state and local
  governments from setting their own emission
  standards for old non-road engines a concept
  called federal preemption
• The issue of mandatory retrofits at construction
  projects is in the courts
• See Associated General Contractors of America
  (AGC) web site for background information

23
Making it Happen in our Region

• Discussion
• Contact Information
• Telephone [phone]
• E-mail bgillespie_at_marama.org